On 8 Oct, 18:14, "Love Europe, Hate the EU"  wrote:
> Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who opened the
> floodgates
>
> The Culture of Critique reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
>
> In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
> researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
> century intellectual movements – largely established and led by Jews –
> have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the
> confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
> designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
> even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
> utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
> had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
> caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
> with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
> generally thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
>
> The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
> massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
> previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
> and its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series
> is written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
> unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
> groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
> California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
> volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
> uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
> other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
> relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
> almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
> societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
> Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
> of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
>
> The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
> are Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of
> sociology, and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a
> racial perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting multi-
> culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof.
> MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these movements
> as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often tried to
> give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of their
> own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against Jews is
> not ethnocentrism but dishonesty – that while claiming to be working
> for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own good and
> to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
> brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
> gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group
> solidarity they decry as immoral in others.
>
> Celebrating Diversity
>
> Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
> Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
> diversity – but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
> have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
> of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
> for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same
> time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of
> Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in
> gentile society.
>
> Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
> loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
> society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The
> Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
> survival as a people for thousands for years – even without a country
> – has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
> nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
> view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
> identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
> flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
>
> Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
> "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
> belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a
> society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
> as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
> example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
> majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
> liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."
>
> He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-
> strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a
> society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a
> Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as
> the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support
> deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country
> but because it is good for the Jews.
>
> Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
> economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
> policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
> anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
> faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the
> Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles
> and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies
> were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good
> for the country.
>
> Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
> makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing
> his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
> century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped
> beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in
> this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and
> culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise
> of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
> potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
> national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews.
> This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews
> as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and
> influence.
>
> In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "We [Jews]
> have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
> about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
> heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
> irreversible..." – just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
> of European culture also irreversible.
>
> Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
> several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
> immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
> the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
> explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
> MacDonald reports that he and his followers – with the notable
> exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict – were all Jews with
> strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
> perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
> cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
> 'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
>
> By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
> Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
> anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
> the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
> environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
> so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
> integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
> idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
> non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
> ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment
> accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement
> can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
> justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention
> programs.
>
> The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
> consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were
> equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened
> white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of
> Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that
> Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement.
> Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been
> established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew.
> Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus
> Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he
> stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.
>
> Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
> "civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
> American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
> laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
> staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
> being by Jewish voters."
>
> While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
> equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words,
> "American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and
> aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to ...
>
> read more »

I refuse to read any newsgroup post more than 150mm long (about six
inches in old money)